Network News

Get the Morning Fix and the new Afternoon Fix delivered to your inbox or mobile device for easy access to the top political stories of the day. All you need is one click to get Morning Fix and Afternoon Fix!

Obama offered a series of variations on that basic theme over the final weeks of the health care push: the politics of passage are uncertain/unknowable but, in essence, good policy will, in the long run, be good politics.

That sort of approach by Obama -- and his senior advisers -- to an issue that Republicans are promising to put front and center in their campaign to take back the House in November has caused some anxiety among vulnerable Members of Congress and raises a central question about the coming midterms: Would President Obama be better off heading into his 2012 re-election race with Republicans in control of one of the two chambers of Congress?

Much like the name "Lord Voldemort", the idea that Obama wouldn't be devastated by a Republican takeover of the House or Senate -- although the former is far more likely -- is something that senior White House aides dare not utter aloud.

But, that doesn't mean we can't!

There's little question that the Obama Administration struggled with the impossibly-high expectations of what a President elected with 365 electoral votes and enjoying broad majorities in the House and Senate would mean for the direction of the country.

The President has acknowledged that getting his health care bill through Congress was more difficult than he originally expected -- remember that August 2009 deadline? -- due to a number of factors including a bevy of competing bills, the angry town halls of last summer and, of course, the victory of Sen. Scott Brown in a January special election.

While the President -- and Congressional Democrats -- did everything they could to highlight the unwillingness of Republicans to participate in the legislative process, party strategists acknowledged privately that the burden of proof lay on Democrats since they were/are in charge of all levers of power in Washington.

How would the health care fight have played out differently if Republicans were in control of the House?

It's impossible -- though fascinating -- to game out what might have happened but what's clear is that there would be a significant higher bar for Republicans to not only provide alternative proposals but also to work with the President to try to find common ground.

And, if they didn't, Obama could easily use the GOP as a foil -- a symbol of everything that's wrong with government and why it's not working for the American people.

One needs only look back to the last time a Democrat occupied the White House to see the potential political efficacy of such a strategy.

Bill Clinton came into office in 1992 with Democratic majorities in the House and Senate but his presidency foundered in the first two years due to a number of factors not the least of which was his inability to pass his own health care bill.

The Republican takeover of Congress in the 1994 election gave Clinton an enemy in the form of House Speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.). Clinton played off of Gingrich masterfully -- never more apparent than in the government shutdown of late 1995 -- and found ways to work with the Republican-led House on initiatives (welfare reform being the most obvious) that cast him as a bipartisan bridge-builder.

The result? A second term for Clinton in a race that was remarkably easy given where his political fate stood two years prior to the 1996 election. (Cynical Congressional Democrats will note that while Clinton won re-election in 1996, it took the party another ten years to reclaim the House and Senate majorities they lost in 1994.)

Not everyone ascribes to the Clinton model of benefiting from divided government when it comes to Obama in 2012, however.

"Power is better," said one senior Democratic party strategist. "His opponent is who matters, and if [Republicans] are still in the minority it will continue the empowerment of their crazies and will make him look better and better and will cause awful headaches for their nominee."

Ultimately, Obama as well as Vice President Joe Biden, who has traveled the country in support of House candidates, will do everything they can to preserve a Democratic majority in the chamber this fall.

But, if, as some political handicappers are beginning to predict, the House flips in the fall, there's a reasonable case to be made that it could accrue to Obama's political benefit in 2012.

Chris— Look, I'm sorry, but the political efficacy of blaming the other side for not getting anything done is not the same thing as governing in a transformative way, and Obama wants to govern in a transformative way.

The idea that Obama would prefer to be stymied over the next two years for the sole reason that he would have Republican obstructionism to run against in 2012 is absurd on its face, and way too cynical for me. Moreover there is nothing in his behavior or relations with Congress to back this up.

This is what happens when people tie themselves in knots focusing on the inside game instead of policy and governance, but that's what you're paid to do so I can't really blame you.

Why would a Republican controlled House be better for President Obama or for the populace? The Republicans have demonstrated that all that matters to them is politics. They appear to be in politics only for money and power. They could care less about the problems that a huge number of Americans are facing. America needs a new system which will allow the populace to recall legislators who become Corporate Politicians rather than trying to competently do the work they were sent to Washington to do. They don't mind wasting a lot of time and gumming up proposed bills even in the face of the most dire crisis as was demonstrated when the bill to extend employment benefits for needy Americans was held up all in the name of politics. I don't care if it was allowable and legal, it needs to change. Too many of our legislators have sold themselves to the highest bidder and constituents just don't matter. They are out of control and something seriously needs to change.

A Republican controlled House would mean total chaos for this country! But if the people elect them, we deserve the consequences just like 8 years ago.

@Broadway Joe What you say makes no sense because if you are in the company of someone who commits a crime, it makes you an accessory. If someone belongs to an organization and has affiliations with certain people, it doesn't mean that they agree with everything an associate does. On the other hand, if they are in the company of an associate of an organization and that associate commits a crime or is violent or demonstrates hate either verbally or visually, then they must accept responsibility for the behavior of their associate and do everything they can to get them to act according to their rules of decorum. The Tea Party has a diverse group of people but most support the hate and vicious verbal attacks by some of their members. They don't discourage these offensive uncivilized behaviors so the behaviors must not violate any rules of decorum or ethics.

Yea, there are cases that the federal government can regulate wheat grown in your backyard - which only the people in the house eat.

However, the States DO have powers - and there MUST be some line between Federal and State powers.

It is an error to say the Federal Government can do whatever it wants - and the States' Power has to diminish until there is nothing left.

Wheat is traded across state boundaries - and the Federal government was trying to regulate supply and demand - so growing wheat in one's backyard and eating it - that reduces the demand in interstate commerce.

HOWEVER HEALTH INSURANCE IS DIFFERENT. Right now, it is illegal to sell health insurance across state lines. AND health insurance has TRADITIONALLY BEEN REGULATED BY THE STATES.

The Courts should look at this question -

___________________________________________

The Supreme Court finally came to its senses when it invalidated a congressional ban on illegal guns within 1,000 feet of public schools. In United States v. Lopez (1995), the Court ruled that the Commerce Clause may only be used by Congress to regulate human activity that is truly commercial at its core and that has not traditionally been regulated by the states. The movement of illegal guns from one state to another, the Court ruled, was criminal and not commercial at its core, and school safety has historically been a state function.

If you INSIST on defining the ENTIRE Tea Party Movement by the actions of a few people, then surely you would NOT OBJECT to going down to any courthouse in America and defining all black people by the actions of the few blacks who are on trial as criminals ????

Just caught d's earlier post at 5:54 pm. Sounds like 1939 Germany when the shopkeepers' windows were smashed. All the signs are there. More and more commentators are openly stating the baggers are just a modern reincarnation of the Klan.

Wonder how Dale Robertson, Tea Party founder and president, handled the signing into law of HCR today? Here he is proudly holding the official banner of the teabaggers, their famously misspelled n-word sign:

@noa: You're right. The Nancy-doesn't-have-the-votes false narrative continued up until the last day when -- gulp -- she did. Gotta hand it to the corporatists. They're able to convince these sociopaths over and over again to vote directly against their personal interest, e.g., opposing tax reform that lowers their taxes.

Seriously how does someone oppose universal health care, something every industrialized nation enjoys? Well, it's over at least for now: America won and the racists, corporatists, and shills lost. Take a bow. :)

Chris, I bet you thought you would have a nice, quiet early spring, then a few primaries and a npeaceful early summer before the campaigns picked up in August or September. Instead you find yourself in a year-round pressure cooker.

It will be comical to see the teabaggers try to run on repealing the benefits of HCR that practically EVERYONE wants (notwithstanding the corporate-rigged polls of 500 landlines and the media lies). Bagger narrative: How dare BHO try to stop insurance companies from canceling your policy due to pre-extsting conditions!--LOL Sorta feel sorry for Frum. You know he'll be under tremendous pressure to walk back from his Waterloo statement.

It's a great day for the nation but you'd never know it from this blog.

But BWJ, that's my point. This IS an historic moment. It's as big a deal as the Civil Rights Act. It's oner of those times that future generations assuming we survive will look back at.

But for this blog it's just another day of information manipulation and spin management, another round of stenographry of GOP talking points, topping it off with this purely idiotic "analysis."

Reminds me of Jake talking about Palin becoming president, beginning with getting every single vote McCain got .. rubbish. The GOP of 2010 has nothing in common with 1994. The symmetry is completely false. In 1994 the Republicans were obstreporous and rebellious but other than the shutting down the government to make a point they were at least modestly sane, OK, sometimes .. they weren't egging on a lynch mob from the balcony of the House of Representatives. They weren't talking about totalitarianism and dictators and the end of America as we know it.

I seriously think the Post could find someone better for the job. The insights that brought me here in 2008 are gone now. Today's entry is simply garbage. Garbage.

The most memorable images of the HCR opposition will be the photos of the racist, sociopathic tea baggers (and their disgusting signs) at their hate rally on the Hill, and Boehner orange-faced, huffing and puffing with hate and rage, on the House floor. Priceless...

==

The best part about Boehner was that he knew he'd already lost. It was like the grunt in "Aliens" yelling "this ain't happenin' man this ain't happenin'." He'd probably been knocking back bourbon for months smirking along that "Nancy doesn't have the votes," but, oops, yessss she did.

His flailing gestures, his rage, a man whose world is collapsing around him. As indeed it was.

I mean, when a jerk like David Frum contrasts as the voice of reason ....

@noa: I just don't think the text goes through any review (see, e.g., the infamous HRC video). The endless free ads/mentions for Pawlenty and Cook would raise a huge red flag for most papers' editors. Of course the slant--so great now that the blog can't appreciate, honor, and respect this great historic moment--has gotten silly. Maybe the Post can't afford editors. Sad.

Excerpt from article on Olbermann's great Special Comment on the baggers and HCR:

"Plugging the segment, Olbermann at one point even linked the Republican party and Tea Party activists to "incitement to violence," and warned of possible extinction like the Whig party: "An appeal tonight to the Republicans and to the Tea Partiers. You bet everything you had on health care reform, and you have lost, so try something different with less spitting, less racism, less incitement to violence before you become the Whig party of 2010." During his "Special Comment," he further warned: "You are behind the wheel of a political Toyota. And before the midterms, you will have been reduced to only being this generation`s home for the nuts.""

I think the Post should fire Cillizza. First of all he's just not that good a reporter. We don't read anything here that makes us think or reconsider, it's purely a digest and regurgitate blog. Yeah the summaries of national races are interesting for those who care about them (I don't) but that's the kind of thing you pay a researcher for.

And the Republican biases are too plain and too obvious to take Cillizza seriously. This post is a prime example; HCR is an undisputed triumph but Cillizza writes about it through rhetorical clenched teeth and can't wait to segue to the Republican Rising nonsense. I mean, WHO GIVES A SH|T WHAT TIM PAWLENTY THINKS ABOUT IT?!?

WaPo, find someone (1) less biased (2) more intelligent to do this blog.

Cillizza did good work during the campaign but that was a long time ago.

After they gave it their absolute all, not only did they fail to defeat HCR but they looked absolutely awful trying. Making fun of people with medical conditions, naked undisguised racism, infantile behavior, culminating with spitting on Congressmen and a minority leader tantrum.

The most memorable images of the HCR opposition will be the photos of the racist, sociopathic tea baggers (and their disgusting signs) at their hate rally on the Hill, and Boehner orange-faced, huffing and puffing with hate and rage, on the House floor. Priceless...

the knuckledraggers just can't get over that America has a black president.

He's the president. He's black. He was born here, is a citizen, he is the president.

Nothing you can do can change that, no matter how many little conspiracy games you play.

It's just too bad for the racists -- you're day is over. Americans elected a black man.

He's the president. Now why don't get over it and move on with your life?

Posted by: drindl | March 23, 2010 12:20 PM
_________________

Obviously we co-sign.

The MSM is still catching up to that reality. The tea bagger hate meltdown got major play on TV and probably represents their Waterloo. Olbermann, I'm told, did a great Special Comment along the "Waterloo" theme line--soon the GOP may cease as a major party.

Congressman Clyburn basioally said that thanks to the bagger hate fest we now know the opposition to the BHO's bill was NOT about the substance of the bill.

It is just hard to believe that on the day BHO signed HCR into law, a Post employee would type this winger/bagger stuff. Pathetic. Can't wait till the baggers, and their media enablers, try to repeal the bill after folks start to enjoy its benefits. Waterloo!

1. "Is a Republican-controlled House better for President Obama in 2012?"

2. "How would the health care fight have played out differently if Republicans were in control of the House?"
_________

What the ______? Is this post a joke? A snark? Was this screened by any Post editor. Milt, are you still there? Can you imagine this being typed while Kate Graham was alive. On the day of BHO's greatest triumph--his signing into law a health care bill every legit president since Teddy Roosevelt has unsuccessfully tried to get passed--we have this rightwing thought experiment?! But to the above questions:

Answer No. 1: No.

Answer No. 2: We would not have a health care bill. See, pal, BHO's opposition said they wanted him "to fail" because he's a ______ and then denied him even a single vote on every bill our President cared about. They don't want any health care reform; that's why even after BHO gave into numerous GOP demands they still wouldn't support the bill.

"By early afternoon, Tea Party demonstrators had assembled on the grounds outside the Capitol and begun their familiar chant, "Kill the bill!" There were the usual placards about socialism, tyranny and the perceived threat to all that is good and true. The movement claims to have African American and Hispanic followers; maybe it does, but I didn't see them.

....

On Saturday, the vile epithet that is euphemistically called "the N-word" had been hurled at Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), one of the great heroes of the civil rights movement, as he walked past the Tea Party crowd. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.), who is also black, was spat upon. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who is gay, was insulted with what I guess should be called "the F-word.""

TOTAL co-sign on nominee Rominee. Just imagine how stale and phony he'd sound after nine months.

Imagine the Republican audiences though .. they just melt at a guy who looks like he just stepped off the cover of Business Week .. Romney would center his tie and the screams would sound like a Beatles concert in 1964, complete with WET SEATS.

I'm 52 years old and a paraplegic, (for 30 years now). I have work for 22 of those years snice I became disabled. Some one tell me, if medicare is going to be bankrupt before I retire than why are they still taking money out of my check? Snice I'm disabled why are they still taking SSDI out of my check. I started paying into these systems and was told they would help me in later years when I retire. From what I hear thats not the case. If so I don't want to pay into something for years just to find out I did it for nothing. If this happens I want all that money back.

Just look at the gap between the two kinds of posters. And the two kinds of people. Don't see a lot of bell curve there, do you? It's totally bimodal.

Of course it's become bimodal.

The bill that just passed is essentially the same thing the GOP proposed in response to the '93 Clinton plan. It's uttlerly milquetoast, completely moderate, in no way radical, and about as centrist as major reform can be.

Despite the fact that I count myself further in the liberal camp, I spent the last 6 months fighting fellow progressives that we ought to accept this compromise. It's neither the centrist nor the left's fault that the conservatives Dems were forced to play proxy for obstructionist Republicans. They had 9 months to get on board. Deadline after deadline passed. Chuck Grassley, supposedly the GOP's chief senate negotiator, hit the road to give aid and comfort to death panel nonsense.

I'm in no way, shape, or form demanding everyone become a liberal or even a centrist... All I am saying is that it's high time reasonable conservatives, pragmatists, and centrists recognize the environment is hardly polarized along an equally split fault line.

Both sides have their grassy knollers... Five years ago, most of us on the left did everything we could to marginalize CodePink radicals, to say nothing of - find me a single elected Democrat that lent them any sort of support.

The equivalent on the right?

They've got a leading conservative PAC doing everything possible to co-opt them. Their party chairman is trying desperately to incorporate them. Conservative luminaries speak before them, make excuses for their boorish behavior, and incite them to further heights of delusional paranoia.

Time to wake up, centrists, independents, and pragmatists - sad, but true - there's only side of the aisle that has any interest in your ideas and concerns. The other is putting off dealing with you until after they've done away us cancers on the left.

Yea, there are cases that the federal government can regulate wheat grown in your backyard - which only the people in the house eat.

However, the States DO have powers - and there MUST be some line between Federal and State powers.

It is an error to say the Federal Government can do whatever it wants - and the States' Power has to diminish until there is nothing left.

Wheat is traded across state boundaries - and the Federal government was trying to regulate supply and demand - so growing wheat in one's backyard and eating it - that reduces the demand in interstate commerce.

HOWEVER HEALTH INSURANCE IS DIFFERENT. Right now, it is illegal to sell health insurance across state lines. AND health insurance has TRADITIONALLY BEEN REGULATED BY THE STATES.

The Courts should look at this question -

___________________________________________

The Supreme Court finally came to its senses when it invalidated a congressional ban on illegal guns within 1,000 feet of public schools. In United States v. Lopez (1995), the Court ruled that the Commerce Clause may only be used by Congress to regulate human activity that is truly commercial at its core and that has not traditionally been regulated by the states. The movement of illegal guns from one state to another, the Court ruled, was criminal and not commercial at its core, and school safety has historically been a state function.

Authorities in Wichita and some other cities across the country are investigating vandalism against Democratic offices, apparently in response to health care reform.

And on Monday, a former Alabama militia leader took credit for instigating the actions.

Mike Vanderboegh of Pinson, Ala., former leader of the Alabama Constitutional Militia, put out a call on Friday for modern “Sons of Liberty” to break the windows of Democratic Party offices nationwide in opposition to health care reform. Since then, vandals have struck several offices, including the Sedgwick County Democratic Party headquarters in Wichita.

“There’s glass everywhere,” said Lyndsay Stauble, executive director of the Sedgwick County Democratic Party. “A brick took out the whole floor-to-ceiling window and put a gouge in my desk.”

Stauble said the brick, hurled through the window between Friday night and Saturday morning, had “some anti-Obama rhetoric” written on it.

Vandals also smashed the front door and a window at Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ office in Tucson early Monday, hours after the Arizona Democrat voted for the health care reform package.

Over the weekend, a brick shattered glass doors at the Monroe County Democratic Committee headquarters in Rochester, N.Y.

Attached to the brick was a note that said, “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice” — a quote from Barry Goldwater’s 1964 acceptance speech as the Republican presidential candidate.

And on Friday, a brick broke a window at Rep. Louise Slaughter’s district office in Niagara Falls, N.Y. Slaughter, a Democrat, was a vocal supporter of the health care reform bill passed by the House on Sunday.

Vanderboegh posted the call for action Friday on his blog, “Sipsey Street Irregulars.” Referring to the health care reform bill as “Nancy Pelosi’s Intolerable Act,” he told followers to send a message to Democrats.

“We can break their windows,” he said. “Break them NOW. And if we do a proper job, if we break the windows of hundreds, thousands, of Democrat party headquarters across this country, we might just wake up enough of them to make defending ourselves at the muzzle of a rifle unnecessary.”

Good lord, CC... even for the WaPo, this post probes new depths of stupidity.

Foil?

Good grief. When the GOP has ideas, they're welcome to bring them to the American people and we'll all vote accordingly.

A GOP controlled congress? Should I get my seats now for the 3 ring circus impeachment hearings? Should Orly Taitz book her hotel room now?

It's high time the media quit playing this stupid he said/she said game, where each side of the aisle lays equal claim to legitimate ideas and concerns.

I'm not talking about conservatives or Republicans generally - but right now, the GOP is rife with nothing more than thinly disguised secessionists, Bull Connor descendants, and other dangerous elements.

This isn't the party with any room for the Lincoln Chafees -- or even the pre-help-me-save-my-seat-from-JD-Hayworth John McCain or Bob Dole or Bush I. Today's GOP is a wholly owned subsidiary of their lesser elements -- the Bachmanns, the Limbaughs, the Coburns, and the DeMints, the Nevins, and the Neugebauers.

If they gave awards for the most absurd wankery, you'd have the 2010 honor sown up before we even hit April.

What utter and complete nonsense. Only a bubble-encased villager of the master idiot order types something like this.

Was Bush good for the economy? Republican-controlled House better for Bush in those 8 disaster years? the worst thing that could happen to the USA is for Republicans to poison the waters of progress, again.

To all Conservatives, Republicans, Independents and Tea Party Members.

This is easily defeated in unity.

It is time to throw the tea (Health Care Insurance Policies with Insurance companies) overboard.

The Tea is the insurance companies' policies, not the Senate Bill (HR 3590).

The Senate Bill is a mandate to buy the tea (H.C. Insurance Polices) against our individual rights, but the
tea is the insurance policies.

It is time for all healthy conservatives and Tea Party members to throw out their insurance polices.

If we have a large portion of American public, that are healthy at the moment,
throwing out their insurance policies, in other words boycotting the insurance companies, then it will bring the insurance companies to their knees.

Conservatives and Tea Baggers with health conditions should stay on their polices to
help choke the system.

With the Healthy buyers throwing out their plans, and the unhealthy buyers keeping their plans, the Insurance companies will starve, as they need the money from healthy customers to pay for the unhealthy customer policies.

Also, since we know that the liberal buyers will continue to use their polices it will cause a great drain on the system.

The Insurance Companies will have no choice but to deal with the consumers and petition the government to listen to the consumers.

The (HR 3590) mandate does not go into effect until 2013 so we have some time to choke the awful grip of Senate Bill (HR 3590) mandate(the teeth of the bill) before it goes into effect.

All state governments should sue the Federal government for this unconstitutional mandate,
as well, we need the courts involved quickly.

If the GOP is going to continue down this fire and brimstone path, then they need to sit down somewhere until they are ready to act like grown-ups! We do not need the party of Chicken Little in Washington. If you cannot debate your case on its own merits, then it must be a bad idea. Socialism, Marxism, Communism, and Maoism mean DIFFERENT THINGS! Enough of the scare tactics. I am all for a two-party system, and maybe a three-party system. But I am sick of the zero-sum tactics.

It is true that it was a republican congress that forced Bill Clinton to move to the center and resulted in the prosperous 90s. However, a republican congress,starting in 2011, would find Pres Obama using the veto, I believe. If he didn't, it would surprise me. Nevertheless, it is the best course for America if we are to prevent this republic, the Founding Father's wonderful experiment, from slipping away from the people. We need to first shut off his resources via congress and then work on ridding ourselves of a progressive Pres Obama. If the people don't understand this, then as Al Sharpton said, the people voted for Sen Obama and therefore voted for socialism. They will have put their hands out and surrendered their God given rights to the Gov't.

Bill Clinton Said Once they See its Not what The Republicans Said it would be, Obama's Numbers would Go Up and its Happening, Sooner than Expected, too.
__________________________

WASHINGTON — Americans by 9 percentage points have a favorable view of the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote that showed a plurality against it.

By 49%-40% those surveyed say it was "a good thing" rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill. Half describe their reaction in positive terms, as "enthusiastic" or "pleased," while about four in 10 describe it in negative ways, as "disappointed" or "angry."

The largest single group, 48%, calls the bill "a good first step" that should be followed by more action on health care. An additional 4% also have a favorable view, saying the bill makes the most important changes needed in the nation's health care system.

LAWSUITS: 13 AGs sue over health bill
HEALTH BILL: How six groups will be affected
BUSINESS: Employers unclear on impact

To be sure, the nation remains divided about the massive legislation that narrowly passed the House late Sunday and was signed by Obama in an emotional East Room ceremony Tuesday morning. The Senate began debate Tuesday afternoon on a package of "fixes" demanded by the House.

The findings are encouraging for the White House and congressional Democrats, who get higher ratings than congressional Republicans for their work on the issue. The poll shows receptive terrain as the White House and advocacy groups launch efforts to sell the plan, including a trip by Obama to Iowa on Thursday.

No one gets overwhelmingly positive ratings on the issue, but Obama fares the best: 46% say his work has been excellent or good; 31% call it poor. Congressional Democrats get an even split: 32% call their efforts good or excellent; 33% poor.

The standing of congressional Republicans is more negative. While 26% rate their work on health care as good or excellent, a larger group, 34%, say it has been poor.

For more results and a look at the demographic breakdown of the poll findings, see Wednesday's USA TODAY.

"Republicans bitterly denounced the legislation Tuesday, and more than a dozen GOP state attorneys general promptly filed lawsuits challenging it as unconstitutional."

Declaratory and injunctive relief is appropriate and is available for Plaintiffs, as a tool of the Court to protect Plaintiffs from future abridgment of their rights.

Plaintiffs show a "real" or "immediate" threat to their rights being further abridged and that a substantial and immediate irreparable injury exists, See City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111 (1983) (quoting O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 502 (1974) that Plaintiffs' suit is not premature.

Once again PissJug is issuing the same post over and over, too feebleminded to compose new ones.

Barely any more feebleminded than the ones making confident predictions that the Republicans will regain House and Senate. As if that was ever likely, it's a hell of a lot less likely now. Republicans have shown themselves to be ineffectual and rudderless, and most people who didn't get that a week ago sure as hell get it now.

"Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele (R), who is running for the U.S. Senate, denounced the King ad(calling him a R), and Donald E. Scoggins, president of Republicans for Black Empowerment and a former member of the association, said it was a terrible idea.

"Black Republicans railed against the radio ads, with the sharpest criticism coming from former members of the black Republican association. "

"The vast majority of black Republicans I know would not have approved of the ad," Scoggins said.

"To suggest that Martin could identify with a party that affirms preemptive, predatory war, and whose religious partners hint that God affirms war and favors the rich at the expense of the poor, is to revile Martin," said the Rev. Joseph Lowery, the former president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which the slain civil rights leader helped establish.

Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who marched with King in the 1960s, called the ads an "insult to the legacy and the memory of Martin Luther King Jr." and "an affront to all that he stood for."

When King was freed, his father vowed to deliver 10 million votes to the Democrat, even though Kennedy was only a reluctant supporter of civil rights. That began four decades of black people voting for liberals.

The younger King voted for Kennedy, and for Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson four years later. In that election, King publicly denounced the Republican candidate, Barry Goldwater.

When King was freed, his father vowed to deliver 10 million votes to the Democrat, even though Kennedy was only a reluctant supporter of civil rights. That began four decades of black people voting for liberals.

The younger King voted for Kennedy, and for Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson four years later. In that election, King publicly denounced the Republican candidate, Barry Goldwater.

Strom Thurmond was head of the Dixicrats back in the 60s became a rightwing R. That is why you now say the liberal Rs who you would have nothing to do with today like Pete McClusky, Earl Warren
Nelson Rockefeller, Jon Lynsey,Ed Brooke John Mathias and Edward Dirkson would somehow make MLK a R. When the R party starts calling themselves Rockefeller Rs we will take such talk seriously. More rightwing revisionist history.

Incidentally we have yet to hear your condemnation of the overt racist rant here today; is that part of today's R party that now delusionally claims MLK?

yep had we done nothing we were bankrupt anyway.....we might still be.......but at least dems are working, trying, and even willing to give up their careers to help people.......... A couple were asked what if you lose your election i November was it worth it? Their answer was yes most def. Now THAT IS COUNTRY FIRST
dems were trying and republicans were lieing......

Yea, there are cases that the federal government can regulate wheat grown in your backyard - which only the people in the house eat.

However, the States DO have powers - and there MUST be some line between Federal and State powers.

It is an error to say the Federal Government can do whatever it wants - and the States' Power has to diminish until there is nothing left.

Wheat is traded across state boundaries - and the Federal government was trying to regulate supply and demand - so growing wheat in one's backyard and eating it - that reduces the demand in interstate commerce.

HOWEVER HEALTH INSURANCE IS DIFFERENT. Right now, it is illegal to sell health insurance across state lines. AND health insurance has TRADITIONALLY BEEN REGULATED BY THE STATES.

The Courts should look at this question -

___________________________________________

The Supreme Court finally came to its senses when it invalidated a congressional ban on illegal guns within 1,000 feet of public schools. In United States v. Lopez (1995), the Court ruled that the Commerce Clause may only be used by Congress to regulate human activity that is truly commercial at its core and that has not traditionally been regulated by the states. The movement of illegal guns from one state to another, the Court ruled, was criminal and not commercial at its core, and school safety has historically been a state function.

I am so sick of the republicans and the tea baggers who believe Obama is not a citizen and who think hes like hitler. Give me a break. Is there a chance we could put some of them in come November???? It is ok to disagree but these people are nuts. It is really to bad that fox news and some of the republicans encourage this junk. It is to bad for the people who are being used by those who are laughing all the way to the bank.
Just try to reason with one of them, ha I tried... omg.... there is no discussion, no intelligence no reasoning. They don’t know why but obama is hitler, they have no answers it is just so.
And the republicans saying dont judge us on a few.....um....then denounce them including Rush L........instead of standng on a balcony with signs encouraging violence. These people are embarrassing, wonder what the other countries think. Wow democracy is great......attack the leader from the day they get in office......impressive.......yea attack the man who works constantly to clean up the mess the republicans left. They spent less the 2 weeks on health care in 8 years.....they were more interested in tax cuts for the rich and evaporating the middle class.....and i used to vote republican......amazing
wtg dems....it was not your waterloo....republicans put power and the upcoming election in front of the American people. They should have helped.....what are they getting paid for.......yikes

The Supreme Court finally came to its senses when it invalidated a congressional ban on illegal guns within 1,000 feet of public schools. In United States v. Lopez (1995), the Court ruled that the Commerce Clause may only be used by Congress to regulate human activity that is truly commercial at its core and that has not traditionally been regulated by the states. The movement of illegal guns from one state to another, the Court ruled, was criminal and not commercial at its core, and school safety has historically been a state function.

I seriously doubt it. The GOP will continue to have temper tantrums. They will continue to bully. They will continue in their attempts to destroy Obama, just as they did with Clinton. Nothing has changed with them, except the vitriol and intensity. The fact is, Republicans don't give one iota about the average American, but by gosh, they'll wrap themselves in the American flag while they're doing some serious Bible thumpin. The Party of No, No ideas, No Scruples, No Empathy, and No Relevance. It's frightening to think of them being in power. Didn't we learn anything after 8 years of Bush? Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

What about all the people that are going to die before the 2014 implementation? The ones that we have heard about a lot during the last year. Doesn't Barry care? I would say if he cared then these people would have HC today 3/23/2010. Instead Barry is going to preen in front of the mirror for 4 years.

IIRC it was shrink2 posted a few weeks ago that Republican Rising has peaked, that Scott Brown was the pinnacle and it would be downhill for the GOP from now on. I'd say he nailed it.

After they gave it their absolute all, not only did they fail to defeat HCR but they looked absolutely awful trying. Making fun of people with medical conditions, naked undisguised racism, infantile behavior, culminating with spitting on Congressmen and a minority leader tantrum.

The GOP will not take the House or the Senate. Pundits are just talking it up like it will be a real contest when we all know it will be another blow-out. Pundits are just like sportscasters - gotta get the @$$es in the seats.

The Supreme Court finally came to its senses when it invalidated a congressional ban on illegal guns within 1,000 feet of public schools. In United States v. Lopez (1995), the Court ruled that the Commerce Clause may only be used by Congress to regulate human activity that is truly commercial at its core and that has not traditionally been regulated by the states. The movement of illegal guns from one state to another, the Court ruled, was criminal and not commercial at its core, and school safety has historically been a state function.

I think that the breaking point will be stretching the Commerce Clause into FORCING citizens to purchase healthcare insurance. By definition, those who refuse to purchase healthcare insurance (Keith Olbermann) are NOT engaging in any commerce.

"Progressives, hasn't anyone told you yet, WE HAVE NO MONEY LEFT! HELLLOOOO! Social Security & Medicare/Medicaid are all broke, thanks to the biggest Ponzi Scheme in the history of mankind!/;

the Iraq invasion ?You're right for once in your life!

Posted by: newagent99 | March 23, 2010 3:22 PM
----------
Yeah, we knew that for a few years now. That is why we passed this health reform bill that will help keep medicare above water and save $1.23 trillion dollars in deficit spending over the next 20 years.
I guess you conservatives are finally waking up.

________________________________________
The same foxes that guarded the old (social) hen house is again in charge of the "latest and greatest" social hen house. Thanks, but fool me once and it's their fault, fool me twice and now it's my fault. Never again. It is you who needs to wake up ;-)

the wingers are all sock puppets of fox -- they have no idea what's really going on in the world, or in this bill -- fox won't tell them that. it doesn't serve their propaganda interests, which is to keep wingers are riled up and watching their hateful shows.

ssol4569 wrote:
"Progressives, hasn't anyone told you yet, WE HAVE NO MONEY LEFT! HELLLOOOO! Social Security & Medicare/Medicaid are all broke, thanks to the biggest Ponzi Scheme in the history of mankind!
_____________________________________

newagent99 wrote:
the Iraq invasion ?You're right for once in your life!
______________________________________

So what's your point? The Vietnam War spanned the years of 1959 to 1975. The US Presidents during this time were: Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. Again, what's your point?

"Progressives, hasn't anyone told you yet, WE HAVE NO MONEY LEFT! HELLLOOOO! Social Security & Medicare/Medicaid are all broke, thanks to the biggest Ponzi Scheme in the history of mankind!/;

the Iraq invasion ?You're right for once in your life!

Posted by: newagent99 | March 23, 2010 3:22 PM
----------
Yeah, we knew that for a few years now. That is why we passed this health reform bill that will help keep medicare above water and save $1.23 trillion dollars in deficit spending over the next 20 years.

Are you crazy? The Republican party has turned into a house of loons. They're manipulated by Fox News and talk radio, who are making tons of money out of the crazy people backing them up. With a Republican congress expect impeachment procedures, waste of taxpayer money on revenge and politics over common sense. That's all the Republican party has offered for 10 years. If healthcare is a conservative bill by Republicans before they went coo-coo standards, it's because conservative Democrats pitched in. The Republican party is now a lunatic fringe.

My concern about the healthcare bill is not about the increased taxes that I will have to pay. Paying additional taxes does not concern me. America has been great to me and I have been truly blessed. I also do not have a problem with helping people that are trying but have run into misfortune.
What fustrates me is that America wanted healthcare reform. They wanted to see common sense ideas that would improve the quality and lower the cost. By coupling true reform with expanded coverage, we could have the best of both worlds and the vast majority of Americans would support such an approach including conservatives like me.
However, Washington ignored all ideas that would lower the cost and went strickly for entitlements and government control. What a wasted opportunity! Why? My analysis says that President Obama wants the current insurance system to fail. With all the new mandates, the cost of insurance will increase rapidly. The voters will be unhappy and want a solution. President Obama can now get the big government controlled socialized medicine that he has said repeatly that he wants.

James Earl Ray was a registered Democrat (keep in mind that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a registered Republican). John Hinckley, however, was a Republican. Goes to show you there are nuts on both sides of the aisle.

I don't know what the point of this question is: if the Republicans take control of the House in 2010 - in 2011 they can DEFUNDED the implementation of the health care bill - and the budget can become a major fight. The House Republicans can pass a budget, and leave it at a "take it or leave it" basis.

ALL the talk about BIPARTISANSHIP and how Obama made the commitment to CENTRIST POLICIES and working with the Republicans - and then Obama's attitude was he won the election so he gets to call all the shots.

WELL, the Republicans are going to have that attitude after the 2010 election - Obama's attitude has not contributed to BIPARTISANSHIP LAST YEAR - INSTEAD OBAMA'S ATTITUDE MAY LEAD TO GRIDLOCK NEXT YEAR.

How can that be better for Obama?

In addition, the Republicans are going to find a way to IMPEACH OBAMA - for LYING TO CONGRESS and other charges of abuse of power.

James Earl Ray was a registered Democrat (keep in mind that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a registered Republican). John Hinckley, however, was a Republican. Goes to show you there are nuts on both sides of the aisle.

"Assuming he could get forego his radical partisan agenda, yes, it would good for him and the nation because he would be forced to compromise with sane people in order to get anything accomplished. Beyond that, I'd say keep the Congress as partisan-deadlocked as possible...a deadlocked body doesn't pass anything. The last thing we need is any new laws.

Posted by: flintston | March 23, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse"

Apparently there are no sane people on the Republican side of the aisle these days.

Progressives, hasn't anyone told you yet, WE HAVE NO MONEY LEFT! HELLLOOOO! Social Security & Medicare/Medicaid are all broke, thanks to the biggest Ponzi Scheme in the history of mankind! And we're suppose to trust the same government that spent our money, never intending to save it like the insurance & retirement/disability & unemployment policy it was designed to be? What insurance company would ever get by with doing that very same thing? None!! They've also given benefits to people who never paid even paid into it, thank you very much and we're tired, tired of all of it. It's pretty obvious what is going on here and I cannot believe any American who will never see the benefits they've paid into for so long are falling for THIS latest and greatest Ponzi Scheme (to say the very least)! Please!!! Wake up!!!

As the radical right republicans continue to beat the drums of sedition into a frenzy Americans would do well to tighten security. Remember, These are the same republicans that gave us zealots like Gordon Liddy, Lee Harvey Oswald, and Oliver North just to name a few that immeadiately come to mind. I could add Sirhan Sirhan and the old coot that did Martin King but his name escapes me. How about Richard "I'm not a Crook" Nixon or his chosen VP Spirew "Jailbird" Agnew and who could forget George "mission accomplished" Bush. Geez, just makes me want to run out there and support my local republican gun rights advocate.

Those people that comment on the republicans running up the deficit, I will agree with them. President Bush was not a fiscal conservative. However, if you do not think that our growing and unsustainable budget deficits will not affect your future standard of living, you are living in a fantasy world. Even Moody's recent review of the USA credit rating gave serious warning of a downgrade. It will not take much for the Chinese and other bond holders to realize that US bonds are not as safe as they once were. When foreigners stop buying our bonds, who is going to pay of all of the promises that Washington is making? President Bush was not a fiscal conservative. However, President Obama's radical policies may push the USA right over a cliff.

There are two issues here - and I am disappointed that the Washington Post did not outline the issues - pros and cons - instead of basically dismissing the idea.

The individual mandate is NO WHERE TO BE FOUND IN THE CONSTITUTION - it is a whole new legal concept - and it really has little basis in the Constitution.

The individual mandate could be interpreted as a taking - but does that taking have due process? The only process is - you live, you have to pay.

The second issue is much more complex and it involves the Interstate Commerce Clause - obviously there have been numerous court cases which have expanded this cluase - to the point at which one might believe the entire universe might one day be included.

Well - is that right? You have an industry - health care insurance which has BEEN ILLEGAL TO SELL ACROSS STATE LINES - AND HAS BEEN TRADITIONALLY IN THE POWER OF THE STATES TO REGULATE.

So Obama may have problem there.

This area deserves Constitutional review -

On Obama's side, there were Court cases with ERISA and with Cobra - in which the federal government has strayed - But those cases had a hook-in: employment which interstate corporations.

Health insurance and health care itself does not really have that hook-in. Perhaps they will find another hook-in.

FDR had much of his program struck down by the Supreme Court - Obama loves having things in common with famous people - maybe it will happen again.

"Politics since Bush was elected has been strange at the least. Strange as it is to say the left should be happy about the polarization republicans instituted and that has separated the nation to such extremes has not been seen since the civil war.

Republican ignorance and arrogance even to the stupidest American is getting to be obvious."

you'll notice from the comments here that the stupidest americans ARE republicans.

There are two issues here - and I am disappointed that the Washington Post did not outline the issues - pros and cons - instead of basically dismissing the idea.

The individual mandate is NO WHERE TO BE FOUND IN THE CONSTITUTION - it is a whole new legal concept - and it really has little basis in the Constitution.

The individual mandate could be interpreted as a taking - but does that taking have due process? The only process is - you live, you have to pay.

The second issue is much more complex and it involves the Interstate Commerce Clause - obviously there have been numerous court cases which have expanded this cluase - to the point at which one might believe the entire universe might one day be included.

Well - is that right? You have an industry - health care insurance which has BEEN ILLEGAL TO SELL ACROSS STATE LINES - AND HAS BEEN TRADITIONALLY IN THE POWER OF THE STATES TO REGULATE.

So Obama may have problem there.

This area deserves Constitutional review -

On Obama's side, there were Court cases with ERISA and with Cobra - in which the federal government has strayed - But those cases had a hook-in: employment which interstate corporations.

Health insurance and health care itself does not really have that hook-in. Perhaps they will find another hook-in.

FDR had much of his program struck down by the Supreme Court - Obama loves having things in common with famous people - maybe it will happen again.

Cillizza gives a new dimension to the art of "spinning" by suggesting that President Obama would benefit from loss of Democratic control of Congress. The comparison with President Clinton's loss of Congress to Republicans in 1994 is, at best, marginal. While Clinton's ideology was slightly left of center, he was nevertheless a pragmatist. President Obama is, heart and soul, an ideologue of the far Left. It is unlikely that he would find much upon which to compromise with a GOP controlled House or Senate.

Young people need to know that more of the healthcare burden will fall on their shoulders. The ratio of costs for seniors versus young people is about 5 to 1. However, the bill fixes the insurance cost ratio at 3 to 1. That means young people will pay a disportionate share of the costs. I am not sure that the young people will appreciate paying the healthcare costs for the seniors.

It's unbelievable how whacky and out-of -context the majority of the Press has gotten. They have organized a propaganda machine against the health of middle, and lower class americans, whose premiums and care had gone completely insane. Limbough and Fox news, don't even consider a fair debate on this on their programms. And when they do, it's all one-sided. And remember, a propaganda machine is always one sided, just as Stalin and Hitler's was and the real truths are always supressed with lies included. These propaganda machines can railroad the human mind into believing all kinds of misconceptions. The real truth is; this Bill isn't going to banckrupt the country anymore than all those programms which the Republicans sponsored and put us trillions into debt. And isn't it ironic that there always seems to be enough hundreds of billions for their own programms, such as the useless wars we are fighting now, but never enough for real needed social legislation. If it were all up to these right wingers, we wouldn't have Social Security, we wouldn't have Medicare, we'd all be working 12 hrs a day for $ 3.00 an hour. We'd all be deeply in debt with their crummy loans and credit cards, we'd have child labor as we had in the early 1800's when 5 yr olds worked in factories. And of course, our health wouldn't matter to them,as long as they can afford their own.

It's unbelievable how whacky and out-of -context the majority of the Press has gotten. They have organized a propaganda machine against the health of middle, and lower class americans, whose premiums and care had gone completely insane. Limbough and Fox news, don't even consider a fair debate on this on their programms. And when they do, it's all one-sided. And remember, a propaganda machine is always one sided, just as Stalin and Hitler's was and the real truths are always supressed with lies included. These propaganda machines can railroad the human mind into believing all kinds of misconceptions. The real truth is; this Bill isn't going to banckrupt the country anymore than all those programms which the Republicans sponsored and put us trillions into debt. And isn't it ironic that there always seems to be enough hundreds of billions for their own programms, such as the useless wars we are fighting now, but never enough for real needed social legislation. If it were all up to these right wingers, we wouldn't have Social Security, we wouldn't have Medicare, we'd all be working 12 hrs a day for $ 3.00 an hour. We'd all be deeply in debt with their crummy loans and credit cards, we'd have child labor (as we had in the early 1800's when 5 yr olds worked in factories. And of course, our health wouldn't matter to them,as long as they can afford their own.

I am angry that President Obama and the Congressional leaders continue to say that this bill will reduce the deficit. How can they say that with a straight face? The CBO numbers are obviously not the total cost and they know it.
An analogy would be if I prepared my family budget in the following way:
1. My budget would be in the red if I include the cost of gasoline, so I will leave out the cost of gasoline. Washington left out the cost of the doc fix because this would make the number come in red.
2. My budget would be in the red if I include all costs so I will make the children pay for part of the family’s expenses and will not include these costs in my budget. This is like excluding the state’s cost for increased Medicaid payments.
3. My budget is in the red so I figure in all 10 years of my pay checks but only include 6 years of my expenses.
4. My budget is still in the red so I will assume that I will not eat to reduce expenses. This is like assuming that $500 billion can be removed from Medicare costs. We don’t need a new bill to eliminate waste and fraud. The odds of Medicare being cut by $500 billion are extremely low and the democrats know that.
The best thing that President Obama could do would be more transparent and straight shooting.

The Republicans have put the entire November election into question. They are going to either win big or loose big. The November election will be a defining moment in American history. If the Republicans loose they will leave behind a very angry mob - this is not good. November at least nationally will be decided on the economy - nothing else will matter. By November seniors will have gotten their $250.00 payoff over the donut hole in Medicare part D, young adults will be back on their parents' insurance, and the uninsured will be anxiously awaiting their opportunity to register in one of the exchanges. The Republicans will be demanding a return to the failed policies of the past while seeking to take back the money from the seniors, throwing young adults off of their parents’ health insurance, and telling those with preexisting conditions who cannot get insurance to die.

Tthe lawsuits being filed will only backfire and get more people to register to vote.

With ACORN dead who will the Republicans blame this time for the large number of new voters - particularly students under age 26?

Politics since Bush was elected has been strange at the least. Strange as it is to say the left should be happy about the polarization republicans instituted and that has separated the nation to such extremes has not been seen since the civil war.

Republican ignorance and arrogance even to the stupidest American is getting to be obvious.

1) Those who want to elevate the overtly narcissistic, because they feel better idolizing someone of alleged mythical powers, etc. they enjoy being fans of some beautiful and powerful stranger, it makes them feel better about themselves to "attach" to these other beings.

2) Those that see narcissists clearly, because they have learned the danger first hand. They can I identify the false concern and false promises of the self-involved when they see them. They are not fooled by the beautiful presentation.

Obama is the first sitting president with an overtly demonstrable psychological disorder. Now, in defense of his narcissistic disorder, he'll "fight" against an electorate that is in majority against his overly liberal plans. He'll continue to insist that his economic ideas are sound. He's take no heed from NJ and MA (Ted Kennedy’s seat!). Good luck progressive Dems, you're going down with the ship....

Contemplate the reticence, and effectiveness, of George Washington in building this nation. Then compare it with the 500 + speeches that our current leader has given in less than a year and a quarter; all scripted fiction, (do you find that the word ‘lie’ perhaps applies here?), completely forgettable and delivered to a (or so Obama thought) gullible American public. These increasingly ineffective professorial lessons in everything that is wrong with us were delivered by Obama simultaneous to his systematic dismantling of the United States of America as created by George Washington and the others.

At least 75 of these speeches (a finite number is impossible, as they keep coming, and coming, and coming…) alone dealt with the jewel in the crown of the Obama agenda, health care reform. If enacted, this would enable the federal government under Obama to take over 1/6th of the economy of the US. How effective has his incessant babbling in this regard been? Well, let’s see, Democrats are in the majority in the House of Representatives by 253 to 178; in the Senate by 59 to 41, the Democratic Vice President has the deciding vote in case of a tie, and of course, the Executive branch is of the same party. These are quite extraordinary numbers, in fact near unprecedented in history. It is also the case that the Democrats have been in the majority, both House and Senate not only during Obama’s Presidency, but also for the last term of the GWB Presidency.

This is truly significant power. Yet our Communicator-in-Chief has failed for one and a quarter years to get his J-I-C passed.

Is anyone listening to this person?

I would say no, both on the right and center-right, and surprisingly, the far left
Yet this ineffectual hubrist cannot stop talking. As a matter of fact, all he seems to be able to do is talk, and oh, I almost forgot, he has lots of meetings, too, (the only two things community organizers are able to do). There seems to be nothing else to the persona of Barack Hussein Obama.

Somehow leadership and governing haven’t made it to this equation. Nor has listening to the American people.

Perhaps Mr. Obama and his fellow nation wreckers might want to pause in their feverish activities to pay some attention to what George Washington and the aforementioned other Founders said and did about their nation, rather than to, oh, I don’t know, say, Saul Alinsky, William Ayers, the Mrs., the Reverend Wright, Rahm Emanuel, Van Jones, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Chairman Mao, Hugo Chavez, Andy Stern and all your other real and ideological best friends.

If Obamacare isn't repealed, you will soon see how much all of this really costs. BTW: I voted for the other African-American running for President in 2008 (but, I guess, I am a "racist" nonetheless ; )

American people. We must stamp out the ludicrous lies and fear mongering from the SHEET(KKK) formerly known as Tea Party and its benefactor the Republican party. Get the word out of how this bill will bring down the deficit which exploded under Dubya who took us to war based on a lie and gave out tax breaks to the wealthiest while hiding the cost of the war from the budget. They need to know that they cannot be kicked off insurance any more due to an illness or kept from it due to a preexisting condition, that their children can be on their parents policy until the age of twenty seven and on and on and on. The Repugnicans talk that they will rescind the bill knowing full well that that is impossible for them period. the democrats will get stronger day by day due to this historic bill today and for that God Bless Americas democracy and its fairly elected leaders. TODAY HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM BECOMES THE LAW OF THE LAND! ALL THE OVERHEATED RHETORIC BECOMES REALITY TODAY!

Republicans please take your lies and fear mongering your we are going to kill grandma, we are going to have government takeover of heath care, we are going to become a socialist country, your vile epitaphs shouted at American civil rights hero John Lewis take all your ignorant signs and slogans, your incitement to violence and stick them all where the sun don't shine. You are sore losers of the worst kind and your small tent is shrinking into just some old white southern men who cannot stand the sight of what Americas future is or the fact that our nations fairly elected leader os of mixed race.
Our nations strength has been and is its diversity period. Women, African Americans, Hispanics, Youth and the Higher Educated are the solid and courageous base of the Democratic Party and its leader Barack Obama.
I am proud to have served this nation on the battlefields of Vietnam and to have sent my son to Iraq on two tours. This is the nation we sacrifice for and are proud of the one that takes care of its own and is not just about ME ME Me. We are not a nation that shrinks its aspirations, We do what is hard and we shape our own destiny that is what makes us the United States of America. OBAMANOS AND GOD BLESS AMERICA.

This Health bill is pale by comparison to the socialistic aspect of the Department of HomeLand Security. Why do people want to focus on this one? Personally, I welcome the constitutionality rumblings I'm hearing. If this health bill goes under the constitutional microscope, this would open the floodgates for other bills to be examined, effectively paralyzing the government. The Patriot Act is WAY less constitutional than this health bill. So, bring on the next Supreme Court con job!

"Let's vote every Democrat out and see if that will slow down the oBUMa nation. How do Republicans feel about what we 'owe' our hoards of illiterate, unskilled Latinos?

Posted by: Vickie803 | March 23, 2010 1:32 PM"

A better question is: How do you feel (and Republicans) about the Latino-American U.S. citizens who vote in elections?

Clearly you want to offend them as you have offended me with your statement, as I am a literate, college educated, natural born Mexican-American and you just horribly stereotyped a huge demographic of the United States, of which I am a part of.

Bush won in 2000 and 2004 in large parts thanks to increased support from these Latinos whom you call "illiterate [and] unskilled." Good luck in getting our votes. With an offensive attitude like that, I don't think Obama is the one that's the O'Dumbo.

Well, I see JakeD? (which posting name you using this time gramps?) is out of therapy and thrilling us all again.
What is it about being safe behind your keyboard that makes you feel entitled to tell people which columns to read and what to think and do?
And how come you haven't told us (today)the civil war battle you fought in that was your favorite?
You're falling behind pops, so maybe it's time for you to adjust the meds, change the nappie and lie down for a bit.

All I can say is I am really tired of having that communist fist waved in my face all the time and being told that I just have to 'suck it up' and pay other people's bills while they sit around and do nothing all day but get high. It's this type of arrogance and oppression that led to the American revolution. I just hope the next one is more like the French revolution and the guillotines come out.

Can you say "headsplittingly counterintuitive?" I can sort of see the logic in this wild speculation, but there's a hitch: the GOP has already been taken over by the "crazies" you describe as only being influential in a minority party. They already run the GOP dog/pony show. NO TAXES is their Rainman chant. Doesn't matter if little kids get tossed off food programs or their moms die of cancer from lack of insurance, doesn't matter. For them it's "Squeeze that nickel, me me me mine mine, I've got my healthcare, screw you 35 million suckers who don't, you're probably not my skin shade anyway."

That's who's running the GOP these days. Boehner stood before the House last night and lied without shame, claiming the healthcare bill would lead to federally funded abortions (as if that's a bad thing...) despite knowing full well it's against the law and will remain so. If the leader of their party can step up and show such appalling lack of dignity to lie before the entire nation (all who care enough to watch, anyway--I guess there was probably a Kardashian thing on last night, too), then it's clear the crazies have already commandeered their party. So no, I don't think it'll help our president to have the party of Stupendous Negativity gaining any power, anywhere, anytime. Nice to think it could be true, but....probably not.

You gotta be kidding me. We need more Democrats and some Moderate Republicans. I remember the lovely mess the Republicans got this country in very recently and all the way back to 1929. The Democrats seem to be pulling us out and might I say with little or no help from the Republicans. Get serious...more Republicans? NO.

The republicans badly miscalculated the American electorate on this issue. Saying "No" and doing nothing...not even making a menial contribution will turn out to be the republican's downfall. The media was also wrong on this issue...calling it dead in the water. How wrong they both were! This article is assuming that republicans are somehow going to magically win a majority in Congress for all their "good" work, when in actuality, the republicans have not accomplished a single thing in the last 10 years except start 2 wars at a cost of $1.2 trillion dollars and 180,000 human lives.

Assuming he could get forego his radical partisan agenda, yes, it would good for him and the nation because he would be forced to compromise with sane people in order to get anything accomplished. Beyond that, I'd say keep the Congress as partisan-deadlocked as possible...a deadlocked body doesn't pass anything. The last thing we need is any new laws.

JakeD2
It's not that I'm convinced that Comrade Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, it's that the question of Obama's birth country is like beating a dead horse. What's the point?
Even if he was born outside the USA, the Obama--worshipping clique of the Democrap Socialist Party, in collution with the Democrap Socialist--controlled Main Stream Media, have had two years to bury and/or destroy any facts that may have existed once, and have had plenty of time to manufacture any new ones. If the Comrade Obama "not born a US citizen" gambit hasn't brought up any new facts by now, it won't in the future either.

In Clinton's case, the Democratic House and Senate blocked his initiatives. This enabled Republicans to show that he was doing "scary" things that even his own party did not believe in. In Obama's case, he has achieved victories in Stimulus, Jobs and Health Care bills. So a majority of the country has backed him through his representatives. The economy is improving. We are winning wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The stimulus package is still spending on infrastructure projects. Financial and energy reform bills are still in play.

People tend to back winners, not losers. Look at how many people wear Yankees and Red Sox hats. Obama and the Democrats are winning. That will change the game in the fall.

"long term legacy of the vote not the short term politics". Congress bears the election pain of the vote and the President gets the legacy -- Does anyone in Congress believe that's a good deal for them?

Our President missed his calling -- he should have been selling mutual funds -- or used cars. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall in the selling room -- how did the Representatives that just agreed to cheerfully walk the plank keep from laughing?

Of course not! We had a Republican-controlled House and they did nothing except vote for war, tax cuts for the rich, and whatever else Bush/Cheney asked for. They are the party of no, drag it out, fear mongers, screamers, and do nothings. On a Christian point of view they don't follow Sermon on the Mount. They do follow the God of $$$

'My hunch is that over the past few months, the right-wing media, along with self-adoring Tea Party members, made the mistake of believing their own hype. They convinced themselves that not only did 2 million people take to the streets of the nation's capital last September to protest Obama (a number that was off by 1.9 million), but that "millions" more had marched coast-to-coast over the past 12 months (a number that was completely fabricated). They fastidiously constructed their own parallel universe and convinced themselves that last summer's mini-mobs at local town hall forums had defeated health care reform. They thought their rowdy show of force, complete with Nazi and Hitler posters, and even some protesters parading around with loaded guns, had changed the debate.

Listening to Limbaugh, they thought they were dictating the agenda. Watching Fox News, they though they reflected the mainstream. And reading right-wing blogs, they thought they had killed health care reform.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. It was the sudden and rude realization that, instead, they'd spent the past few months trapped inside an echo chamber, I think, that created the volcanic and unhinged response we've seen play out in recent days. It's the kind of childish and hysterical reaction I didn't think we'd ever witness from a major political movement.'

'Instead, this bout of spastic lashing out has been unique even by the previous standard adopted by Beck, who, on the eve of the health care vote, likened Democrats to Al Qaeda terrorists who were trying to bring America to its knees from the inside.

Let's face facts. It's never pleasant when activists are confronted with their own political impotence. (Not to mention their abysmal vote-counting skills.) But that's exactly what happened over the weekend as Democratic members of Congress passed health care reform -- reform that the radical right had already pronounced dead. In fact, the GOP Noise Machine had spent weeks dancing on reform's grave and mocking Democrats' inability to act. So how did it all go so terribly wrong for health care haters?"

'the Democrats' health care legislation "will make every American a POW, strip them of their Freedoms and Liberty and shove them in a meat cellar for cold storage."

Not scared yet? Well, just keep in mind that "Fascist healthcare will destroy America," "civil unrest is coming," and President Obama is to blame. More? "Fascist House Democrats are preparing to euthanize America." And don't forget that Sunday's health care vote in Congress represented a "dark day for America, the worst since 9/11."

And, progressive politicians, heed this warning: "Democrats who crammed this unwarranted bill down the throats of the American people who clearly and overwhelmingly opposed it deserve to be drawn and quartered."

My answer is no, that is how Clinton ended up singing Medicare Advantage which is killing Medicare. He had to sign many trash pieces of GOP legislation just to pass his NAFTA (which they gutted so it had no effect) and the balanced budget amendment (so they would stop trying to pass tax cuts)...

The GOP need to be for America and in the interest of the people or they should remain the minority. As long as they are pro-business and skewering the common man then they are where they should be.

'Listening to the calamitous warnings (i.e. "the end of America as we know it"), it's not that unreasonable to think that at some point one of the media mob leaders is going to suggest that life itself just is no longer worth living.

After all, late last week the nation stood on the precipice, just three "days away from the United States of America being over as we've all known it," according to Rush Limbaugh, who warned that reform would drive every private insurance company out of business. Glenn Beck also went full tilt, warning that the bill represented a "turning point," like the Civil War and Peal Harbor, while colleague Sean Hannity pinpointed the health care vote as the "very hour" that America turned "completely towards socialism."

The Washington Times likened reform to the "Black Plague," and the online reaction was somehow even more unhinged. It was "RIP USA," because with the vote, America would become "occupied by a hostile foreign power." Indeed, a "socialist putsch" had been sprung and "America's Day of Wreckoning [sic]" was at hand.'

"Watching Fox News personalities recently come unglued as the realization set in that (surprise!) Democrats might actually have the votes to pass health care reform -- and noting how extraordinarily loopy and dire both the attacks on the White House, and the proclamations for pending, apocalyptic doom were becoming -- I was getting nervous that one of Fox News' more unhinged hosts might finally just snap and pull a Rev. Jim Jones, beseeching viewers to make the ultimate sacrifice.

Honestly, unless you've been monitoring the ticking time bomb that is the far-right media in recent days, you probably don't appreciate how frighteningly possible that cultish scenario has become, as the GOP Noise Machine, led by Fox News, publicly suffers a nervous breakdown. It's a mental and emotional collapse that's been advertised in recent days as cablers, radio talkers, and right-wing bloggers have reached for increasingly hysterical, often blood-curdling rhetoric to describe the irreversible atrocity -- an incurable, metastasizing malignancy!! -- that's about to seize and destroy the United States in the form of a bill to expand health care coverage."

I hear all this crap that this bill passed "against the will of the electorate." How dumb! The electorate spoke in November of 2008 when they overwhelmingly elected a man who campaigned on the promise to overhaul the health care industry. THAT is the electorate that counts. NOT some poll taken by whatever agency decides to take a poll today. However, even opinion polls differ. 59% of a recent poll were opposed to this bill. 41% approved this bill. OF THE 59% THAT OPPOSED, 13% DID SO BECAUSE THE BILL DID NOT HAVE A "PUBLIC OPTION.". Add the 13% to the 41% that approve this bill and you can see that the majority was for change. Just the same, the only poll that counts is the one we took in 2008. As John McCain likes to say: ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES

It may be interesting to think about, but it's a ridiculous bit of pondering. The issue shouldn't be what political benefit accrues to which party; the issue should be (and is) what policies benefit the country and its citizens. To distill all this down to some sort of game is cynical at best.

"This administration and this Congress thumbed their nose at the American people over the last year – countless town halls, Tea Party events, 30,000 people on the Mall the day i that they're signing this bill saying 'Don't do this.' They did not listen. Their arrogance knows no bounds," Steele also said'

Because it says in the constitution that the president and congress have to do what angry illiterate mobs want. It says so.

JakeD2 12:16 PM
I've never doubted, or have ever claimed, that Comrade Barack Obama was NOT a US citizen. What I wrote are all true facts that can be checked, and nothing was made up, but I've never disputed the fact that Comrade Barack Obama was born in Hawaii.

'Appearing on Fox News host Sean Hannity’s show last night, contributor Sarah Palin had surprising take, seemingly endorsing the idea of third party to keep Republicans honest:

HANNITY: If it’s a strong conservative that gets the Republican nomination and then a tea party member runs as a third party candidate, do you have any worry about that?

PALIN: I do have a little bit of worry about that but at the same time that can be part of a healthy process, though. A third party candidate can really shore-up a Republican candidate in terms of that Republican candidate having to be very strong and sharp and debate aggressively, regarding the positions that they have taken.

A third party candidate, I think, Sean, can actually help in this process. And if nothing else a third party candidate is going to help keep the Republican Party being held accountable, too."

I think the Repubicans have underestimated the response from the underinsured and uninsured to their tactics. Here is the story of a real underinsured person.

The under insured are as much a problem as the uninsured. My friend who has never voted in his life will for the first time register to vote. He works for JC Penney - they changed their insurance this year. For sales associates it is worthless. Today he made an appointment with a specialist. The first time visit is $380.00. Aetna will pay $200.00 under the plan. He is then responsible for the next $1,150.00, before the 80/20 will kick in. The sales associates earn anywhere between 8-10 dollars an hour with commissions. Most weeks they get only 35 hours. You do the math - where does he get the $1,150.00? He will go to this one appointment and hope the problem can be treated with a medication. There will be no follow-up appointment until he pays the $180.00 his insurance does not cover. He is effectively uninsured.

Now some idiot will say why not get a better job - and this is the problem - opinions without facts or actual knowledge. He was in a training program which would have earned him $20.00 an hour. One of his 4 children became severely disabled while he was in the program. This child requires 24/7 care by both parents. Both parents are exhausted. There is no time for school.

Someone will say, why not try and get a better job - here is the problem - JCPenney gets an A+++ for how they have handled the situation. The father may have to leave work for several days to rush his child to the only hospital in the area with care - some 5 hours away. Every time JCPenney is awesome. When he has to leave work to attend to the child - again JCPenney is awesome. A new employer is never going to be so tolerant of the situation.

This father needs a better option for insurance. He is responsible and pays for his part, pays for life insurance, disability insurance, and retirement. A lot of men would just say - “give me the money” and not buy these other policies. But he is responsible - he is doing his best to make sure his children are cared for in the event something happens to him.

I suppose one could interpret the health care bill as "Pelosi's historic achievement," as the media has been insisting, but that would also mean that an unpopular President and a more unpopular Congress and a most unpopular Speaker together railroaded through an unpopular, sweeping piece of legislation without a single opposition vote, and through the sort of tawdry legislative bribery and procedural gimmicks we haven't seen since the 19th century. So the bill is historic mostly in the minds of the D.C.–New York liberal punditocracy and Democratic stalwarts, for about another seven months, before the people weigh in themselves.

I don't think by year's end too many will call the bill historic; and when the opposition eventually takes over the Congress (and it always does), and its zealots begin to ram through radical, partisan changes, in the manner of Pelosi's precedent, "historic" will be the last adjective we used to look back on March 21 and the role of the Speaker. The means live on; the ends are ephemeral — and Pelosi's conduct tarnished the Congress and will unleash a no-holds-barred reaction when she is out of power that will make historians think very carefully about the real lasting wages of her most unpopular tenure

For the record, I voted for the OTHER African-American candidate for President. That being said, if his parents were legally married but he wasn't born in Hawaii, then Obama is not a "natural-born" citizen and is NOT legally President of the United States (hopefully, Biden does not sign Obamacare bill ; )

Most amusing that Barry's single solitary accomplishment while present ident was actually acheived over his own objections by the leftist tyrant Nancy Pelosi, sworn to enforce the San Francisco values on the entire country.

I guess when you are totally confused about father figures, you naturally look to strong and domineering women to tell you what to do with your life.

Clearly the feminine is the aura of the liberal party, prefering to surrender and apologize overseas, to coddle every citizen, to care for and nurture until the grave, sparing no expense and forgiving all shortcomings.

To Zouk_is_King 11:13 AM
Zouk ask's that we get to see a few of Comrade Barack Obama's paper trail.

With a Democrap Socialist Party--controlled Main Stream Media, it's not likely that that will happen, but there's no need to see the Obama-Dunham marriage license because it's a fraud anyway. Comrade Barack Obama is in fact what we call a 'bastard'.
Comrade Obama's mother Ann Dunham married Barack Obama Sr. while both went to college, and while Barack Obama Sr. was here on a Student Visa from Kenya. The trouble with this marriage was that Barack Obama Sr.--who was a Muslim--was already married and had two wifes back in Kenya, when he married Ann Dunham. While polygamy is legal in the Islamic countries, it's not in the USA, and since Obama Sr. was already married, this Obama-Dunham "marriage" was a sham-marriage probably done by Obama Sr. just to get some a**. The proof of that was that Barack Obama Sr. abandoned Ann Dunham-Obama and their baby Barack Obama Jr., right after graduating, and fled back to Kenya to live with his two real wifes.

"
The head of the Republican party had a full blown tantrum yesterday. You almost have to wonder if he isn't back on the little blue babies because this is so over the top it's like something out of a bad Mexican novella:

"Today, as we start the radio program, America is hanging by a thread. So we have to see what we can do with a thread. At the end of the day our freedom has been assaulted. This is the kind of change that people did not think they were going to get when they voted for Barack Obama. I'm asking myself what kind of country are we today. We're not a representative republic. The will of the people was spat upon yesterday. The will of the people is of no concern to the people who now have power and authority from the White House all the way down to Capitol Hill. The will of the people is something to be crushed. So we're not a representative republic. You can't even say loosely defined we are much of a democracy. We have to restore these things. We have to do this by getting rid of these people at the ballot box. We must get them out of office. That's the only thing here."

Does anyone know where I look in the constitution says the representative republic has to take an opinion poll before they pass a bill and vote accordingly? I can't find it. All I can find is this boring junk about elections and voting and stuff.

Beyond the totally overheated rhetoric, there's a real irony here: What Limbaugh's talking about all comes down to opinion polls, and those have absolutely nothing to do with our actual system of governing. The Founding Fathers didn't put polling in the Constitution, and the first poll in American history wasn't even conducted until 1824.'

The Health Care narrative being advanced by the Democrats and echo-chambered by their propaganda arm is that ObamaCare was dead, but by sheer force of will and iron discipline, Queen Nanny Rictus Botox got all of the Democrats to line up obediently behind her and pass the bill. (They leave out the part that ObamaCare remains immensely unpopular).

Question: How does this narrative that Nancy Pelosi can force her will to get her leftist agenda enacted help vulnerable Democrats in swing or Republican districts?

Right now, they're cheesed off at Democrats because the Democrats control everything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Indeed, even when pelosi was ruining the economy under Bush, all the voters still thought it was Repubs doing it. It is very hard to educate a liberal. they seem to have a block that prohibits any facts that reflect badly on socialism to penetrate the skull.

and then there are the swing voters. Only lately have they realized that Obama meant it when he promised socialism. so now they swing back. OOppps. Maybe we should have elected a guy with a resume longer than a single paragraph.

so now we have President Pelosi running things with the rubber stamping imbecile simply checking in occasionally and giving lots of speeches.

Cripes almighty. Did any of the people filling this comment section with "GEEZ CHRIS YOU'RE SO STUPID WITH YOUR REPUBLICAN-LOVING WAYS" actually read anything below the headline? Or, for that matter, even to the end of the headline?

The operative question here is whether President Obama might stand a better chance of getting re-elected in 2012 if Republicans were to take over one or both houses of Congress this year. And honestly, I've wondered this myself. Because they're out of power in the two partisan branches of our government, the Republicans aren't obligated to be accountable for anything right now, and polling that shows the country listing back in their direction indicates that opposing everything is working for them. But if they actually manage to gain a foothold in the House or Senate or both this year, they'll have to work with Obama to achieve some degree of productivity.

On top of that, voters as a whole are an astonishingly lazy and uninformed lot. Their nature is to be cheesed off at their elected representatives. Right now, they're cheesed off at Democrats because the Democrats control everything. If Republicans manage some degree of takeover, those same people will be cheesed off at Republicans just because they're there. If the GOP is to put forth a presidential candidate in 2012 who will be presented as an alternative for the country, that candidate will have to work harder to differentiate himself from his average GOP peer if the GOP has some amount of power. And although I imagine Obama himself will be running more on his accomplishments than his opponent's shortcomings, the people who make the attack ads will be able to trot out a lot more generalized shortcomings against a candidate whose party has a record to inspect.

"The new CNN poll on the health care bill -- conducted in the days before its ultimate passage in the House on Sunday night -- on the surface appears to show widespread opposition to the law. But on the other hand, the exact makeup of that opposition paints an ambiguous picture of just how effective a Republican campaign against it could be.

The initial top-line shows only 39% of registered voters favoring the bill, to 59% opposing it. However a follow-up question finds that 43% oppose it on the grounds that it is too liberal, while 13% oppose it on the grounds that it is not liberal enough. So another way of looking at the data is that 43% oppose it for being too liberal, 39% favor it, and 13% oppose it for not being liberal enough, with another 3% who oppose it for some indeterminate reasons.

The poll also showed that despite the nominal majority opposition to the bill, President Obama and the Democrats were still rated as being superior to the Republicans on the overall issue of health care.

Respondents were also asked: "Who do you trust more to handle major changes in the country's health care system - Barack Obama or the Republicans in Congress?" The answer was Obama 51%, Republicans 39%"

While most moderates / centrists / swing voters prefer divided government, that preference is rooted in the assumption that both parties will negotiate in good faith, and will seek compromise in furthurance of the public good. The problem right now is that we don't see that, or any inkling of a willingness to compromise, particularly from the Republicans.

So, to ask if a Republican controlled house would be good for the President is a hypothetical for which we cannot offer a reasonable response. What kinds of Republicans are in this theoretical Congress? Are they the reasonable Republicans of yore, that were willing to compromise, that viewed fiscal conservatism as balancing revenue & spending (rather than as just cutting revenue)? Or are they the proto-anarchists that want to dismantle the federal government, leaving its sole role as running a military and defending the country's borders?

Um, sure, Chris. It's best for Obama if Republicans take Congress this year. It's even better that they take veto proof majorities. And it would be even BETTER for Obama if Republicans take the White House in 2012. Then Obama can be the loyal opposition or something except that when Republicans are controlling things, then being the loyal opposition is the same thing as giving aid and comfort to the terrorists, but since we all know that Obama is a terrorist, losing the Presidency will free him up to strap a bomb to his chest and blow up the White House leaving behind a wake of only rubble and jaked laughing about Obama's assassination.

really Chris? another 'when did you stop beating your wife? ' headline. why do you always make the title to the benifit of the GOP? Does the despicable behaviour of the Tea Party members this weekend not disgust you? you give no credit of intelligence to the voters with this dribble. Like other postewrs have said, you always downplay the left "base", you don't seem to realize that the Tea baggers have disgusted people, even republicans, and you do the public no good when you constantly cheerlead the GOP. Get some balance back, quit doing the GOP's job for them, and just repeating what talking heads are saying. read the comments from the front page story about the healthcare bill passing and you will see overwhelming support for the bill, with the same 20 something anti HRC posters repeating the same crap about socialism, etc...

doof thinks he can predict what will happen in 2012. But here's what he said last week:

"health care bill will go the way of the george bush immigration bill from a few years back. expect the House members to cave in. democrats won't have the votes they need. could be really embarrassing for pelosi if she decides to have a vote. the more she waits, the more will defect to no.

Posted by: doof | March 16, 2010 9:41 AM"

Republicans can't even predict what will happen in a week. Why should we listen to their predictions of 2012?

As Johnny Alamo notes, “A ‘Voluntary Surrender’ is not something where you decide ‘Gee, a license is not really something i need anymore, is it?’ and forget to renew your license. No, a ‘Voluntary Surrender’ is something you do when you’ve been accused of something, and you ‘voluntarily surrender’ your license about five seconds before the state suspends (or disbars) you.”

Michelle Obama “voluntarily surrendered” her license to practice law, three years after passing the bar. Which is akin to a doctor going through years of education, and racking up huge student loans, and then, just as it all finally starts to pay off, saying “I think I’ll just give up my license for no particular reason.” There’s a darn good reason, we just don’t know it.

The Supreme Court of Illinois ARDC (Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission) has this to say about Michelle Obama when her name is entered: “(Date Admitted)May 12, 1989, (City)N/A, (State)N/A, (Authorized to practice?) No” The website says her license is “on court ordered inactive status.” (Here and here)

Ex-President Bill Clinton “voluntarily surrendered” his license as the result of statements he made during the Whitewater hearings. Barack Obama, who passed his bar in 1991, “voluntarily surrendered” his license in 2008, for unknown reasons.

Why did Obama surrender his license? Citizen WELLs reports that it may have been because of charges that Obama lied on his bar application. As Al Martin notes, “they can’t punish someone who has resigned, which is why so many corrupt lawyers in Illinois resign before they are disbarred.”

Dr. Orly Taitz, renowned for her legal battles to prove Obama’s ineligibility to be POTUS, made the following comments, “While being sworn as an attorney in the State of Illinois, Mr Obama had to provide his personal information under oath. He was asked, if he had any other names, he responded none. (I am in possession of his registration.) In reality, he used the name Barry Soetoro. ...Mr. Soetoro/Obama clearly defrauded the State Bar of Illinois and perjured himself while concealing his identity…why did he conceal his identity?”

Why indeed?

Obama is concealing a LOT. And it is way past time for him to be called on the carpet to answer some questions.
Here is a very partial list of documents relating to Obama’s past,that no one seems to have seen. Good luck finding them.

Original birth certificate (you know, as in one you can actually touch)
Obama/Dunham marriage license
Obama/Dunham divorce documents
Soetoro/Dunham marriage license
Soetoro adoption records
Occidental College records
Passport—the one used for the trip to Pakistan (not mentioned in either biography)
Columbia College records
Columbia thesis
Harvard College records
Illinois State Bar Association records

What's next for Obama? We can expect to see more of Obama the tyrant and more of Obama the know-it-all. Now that he has "succeeded" with ObamaCare, his pride will be even more puffed up and he will be that much more insufferable and difficult to constrain.

As his Presidency winds down we will see him become more and more angry, impatient and disdainful as the folly of his domestic and foreign policy become apparent to all and as his colleagues desert him in droves, like rats leaving a sinking ship. He will blame everybody but himself for his failures and may even resign rather than accept the verdict of the voters. That after all is what bullies do when they are well and truly exposed... they slink away.
Even though it won't be pretty America will survive and rebound and recover and so will Israel. Obama on the other hand will forever be seen as a pompous windbag and discredited boy wonder who was in way over his head and it will take a Herculean long term effort for the Democratic Party to resurrect itself and become a credible political force.

a republican controlled house would be better for america. obama would not get anything passed.

things will still be bad in 2012. obama will need someone to blame if he runs in 2012. a republican controlled house would give him some cover. but it won't be enough. he will still lose. obama is another jimmy carter.

"So.... we have unpopular people that No One Agrees with-- Running this Country, Railroading Americans with Bad bills that Americans Don't want. Does this sound like democracy to you?"

This is perhaps the most idiotic post I have ever seen. So tell me, moron, what IS democracy? This isn't a high school dance. Whether these people are 'popular' or not is completely irrelevant -- [and a fox poll has nothing to do with 'reality' btw]. They were elected by a majority.

Pelosi's poll numbers were 11% today; Reid's are even lower. Obama's poll numbers have been in the low 40% range.
So.... we have unpopular people that No One Agrees with-- Running this Country, Railroading Americans with Bad bills that Americans Don't want. Does this sound like democracy to you?

Actually the picture is bigger than discussed - The fear of the Republicans winning could force Dems to turn out - as they said during the Bork nomination "We are one Justice away from an injustice. If john Paul Stevens does not resign at the end of this term, the Republicans could control his replacement. On this issue as an extreme left leaning Independent I vote Democrat for Senate and the White House - and I hate the Democrats - but I understand the reality.

So in the end the mere discussion of a Republican take over could force the extreme left to turn out for the Dems if for no other reason than to protect Obama's choice to replace John Paul Stevens whenever that may come

I would not like Republicans to be deciding what laws should be passed because they have a warped logic. They believe that the more you have the more should be added to you and if you don't have, it because of a curse. Also, you should, out of your lowly state contribute more to their well being and be as subordinate as you can be. While all this is happening,they will espouse Christian virtue but ignore the basic tenets of the religion. They will ban abortion even in cases of pregnancies that endanger the life of the mother and then deny the infant proper food, shelter, and education so that it may grow up in lack and servitude to the powerful. If they land up in jail the establishment will pay their upkeep and make political capital out of the bad behavior of the poor. The establishment will ensure that the cycle is perpetuated and then claim that the poor are lazy and do not deserve help.
When are we going to wake up and call a spade a spade?

You're right, CC! I'm a Democrat. I like the Democratic Party, and I like President Obama. That's why I'm voting Republican in 2010! Because voting Republican is the best thing to do for the Democratic Party! Democrats of America: Help your party by voting Republican!

The thing is CC, that this has already happened. When Scott Brown was elected Obama masterfully used that in his SOTU address to show that due to the rules of the Filibuster the GOP had at least partial control of the Senate. This way he has the 'foil' you spoke of and doesn't actually have to seed them any power.

Now with the passage of HCR, he can pivot to putting up bills that have much more significant bipartisan public approval (bank reform, cap and trade etc), and force the GOP to try and show uniformed opposition to those proposals.
Why would a voter want a GOP house when they get the benefits either way? They won't hence the reason that S Brown's election will end up being the worst thing that happened to the GOP's hopes of taking back the house or the Senate in 2010.